Soft Model of Libertarian Free Will

TomFL

Well-known member
Ultimate responsibility (UR) Ultimate responsibility indicates the ultimate origin of decisions.

Agent causation (AC) A person is the source and origin of his choices.

The principle of alternative possibilities (AP) At crucial times, the ability to choose or refrain from choosing is genuinely available.

The reality of will-setting moments A person does not always have the ability to choose to the contrary. Certain free choices result in the loss of freedom.

The distinction between freedom of responsibility and freedom of integrity The Bible presents freedom as a permission (the freedom of responsibility) and as a power (the freedom of integrity).

Soft libertarianism, or concurrence, holds that a moral agent has the power to choose in a libertarian sense, but the limits of this ability are decided by his character. While a determinist argues a person’s choice is determined by his character, soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available. Outside influences and internal dispositions are factors, but the agent has the ability to take any one of the choices within the set. Possessing libertarian freedom means we genuinely choose, but we dwell in a fallen world so it is not an easy, even, unslanted choice. And we are finite creatures, so the range of choices is limited.

From Kenneth Keathley - Salvation and Sovereignty
 

Sketo

Active member
Sounds like a philosophical design for a random chance dice game to me!
Maybe Flip-a-coin-ism!

Can Libertarian Freewillism explanation how one actually lands on the one particular decision finally decided upon?

Why option A instead of option B?

A better question - What within man determines the final willing option decided upon?

If you say “the will” then that just begs the question - how does “the will” come to the final option decided upon?

I only see random chance philosophy!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Sounds like a philosophical design for a random chance dice game to me!
Maybe Flip-a-coin-ism!

Can Libertarian Freewillism explanation how one actually lands on the one particular decision finally decided upon?

Why option A instead of option B?

A better question - What within man determines the final willing option decided upon?

If you say “the will” then that just begs the question - how does “the will” come to the final option decided upon?

I only see random chance philosophy!
The reason for the choice is the chooser

Does God have the power of choice or do you hold him determined as well?

Are you saying God cannot create a being with a limited capability of what he possesses

In any case the bible treats men as free moral agents as seen in a soft libertarian free will model

........................................................................

Ultimate responsibility (UR) Ultimate responsibility indicates the ultimate origin of decisions.

Agent causation (AC) A person is the source and origin of his choices.

The principle of alternative possibilities (AP) At crucial times, the ability to choose or refrain from choosing is genuinely available.

The reality of will-setting moments A person does not always have the ability to choose to the contrary. Certain free choices result in the loss of freedom.

The distinction between freedom of responsibility and freedom of integrity The Bible presents freedom as a permission (the freedom of responsibility) and as a power (the freedom of integrity).

Soft libertarianism, or concurrence, holds that a moral agent has the power to choose in a libertarian sense, but the limits of this ability are decided by his character. While a determinist argues a person’s choice is determined by his character, soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available. Outside influences and internal dispositions are factors, but the agent has the ability to take any one of the choices within the set. Possessing libertarian freedom means we genuinely choose, but we dwell in a fallen world so it is not an easy, even, unslanted choice. And we are finite creatures, so the range of choices is limited.

From Kenneth Keathley - Salvation and Sovereignty
 

Sketo

Active member
The reason for the choice is the chooser
Which gives us no more information than if I said...
The reason for the choice is because the coin landed on heads!

Maybe extreme vagueness is intended with this system!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Which gives us no more information than if I said...
The reason for the choice is because the coin landed on heads!

Maybe extreme vagueness is intended with this system!
Not quite

A coin is an inanimate object not a being made in the image of God

You find it vague because you assume there must be a cause outside the chooser
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Sounds like a philosophical design for a random chance dice game to me!
Maybe Flip-a-coin-ism!

Can Libertarian Freewillism explanation how one actually lands on the one particular decision finally decided upon?

Why option A instead of option B?

A better question - What within man determines the final willing option decided upon?

If you say “the will” then that just begs the question - how does “the will” come to the final option decided upon?

I only see random chance philosophy!
Big difference between a random chance and a decision by a rational being made in the image of God

The chooser chooses option A as one of a set of possible options based upon his character, internal disposition and external forces acting upon him
 

Sketo

Active member
A coin is an inanimate object not a being made in the image of God
You missed the connection of the coin to your system!

The coin is separate from the “influences” within man!
Man may “want”, “desire”, or “prefer” the coin to land on a particular side but, just like in your system, the coin may land independently against any or all other influences and that includes the “influences” within man!
You find it vague because you assume there must be a cause outside the chooser
Ok... can you give a, non-vague, cause within man that explains the final outcome of the choice?
 

Sketo

Active member
Big difference between a random chance and a decision by a rational being made in the image of God

The chooser chooses option A as one of a set of possible options based upon his character, internal disposition and external forces acting upon him
“based upon” is vague!

Are “character”, “internal disposition”, “external forces” considered causes or just influences that the outcome could possibly land against?

If the outcome could land against any, or all, then we are back to “random chance” outcome!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
“based upon” is vague!

Are “character”, “internal disposition”, “external forces” considered causes or just influences that the outcome could possibly land against?

If the outcome could land against any, or all, then we are back to “random chance” outcome!
Influences which may limit man to a particular set of actions

Your alternative

Makes God the cause of man's evil

and man the victim of God's determination

A Holy God the cause for all the evil in the world ?

No thank you

James 1:13–14 —ESV
“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.”

1 Cor. 10:13 —ESV
“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

Job 34:10–12 —ESV
“¶ “Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
For according to the work of a man he will repay him, and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.”
 

Sketo

Active member
Influences which may limit man to a particular set of actions
Still no explanation for the outcome... just more vagueness!

Limiting it from a 20 sided die to a two sided coin still leaves it to a random chance outcome!

“Random chance” has not been explained away!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Still no explanation for the outcome... just more vagueness!

Limiting it from a 20 sided die to a two sided coin still leaves it to a random chance outcome!

“Random chance” has not been explained away!
Again all you offer is your belief there must be a cause external to the chooser

and if there is not an external cause it is random chance

Sorry i reject your assumptions
 

Sketo

Active member
Again all you offer is your belief there must be a cause external to the chooser
Your system doesn’t accept “external cause” therefor when examining your system I am interested in a “non-vagueinternal cause but your system can’t even account for this either!
and if there is not an external cause it is random chance
Your system does not have an external, or an internal non-vague cause, that explains how one lands on a particular option!

Sorry i reject your assumptions
I assume that your system can not account for how a person lands on 1 particular option without it being equivalent to “random chance”!

I can narrow down a die from 20 sides down to 2 and the result of which option it finally lands on is still “random”... just like your system!

Sorry I reject your failed attempts to differentiate Libertarian Freewillism from a random chance dice game.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Your system doesn’t accept “external cause” therefor when examining your system I am interested in a “non-vagueinternal cause but your system can’t even account for this either!

Your system does not have an external, or an internal non-vague cause, that explains how one lands on a particular option!


I assume that your system can not account for how a person lands on 1 particular option without it being equivalent to “random chance”!

I can narrow down a die from 20 sides down to 2 and the result of which option it finally lands on is still “random”... just like your system!

Sorry I reject your failed attempts to differentiate Libertarian Freewillism from a random chance dice game.
And I reject your divine meticulous determination as unbiblical

James 1:13–15 —ESV
“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

1 Cor. 10:13 —ESV
“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

Job 34:10–12 —ESV
“¶ “Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
For according to the work of a man he will repay him, and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.”

The bible carries more weight than your human understanding

BTW the questions remain

Does God have Libertarian free will ?

Is he determined ?

If not determined are his choices random chance ?

That goes to your conclusion if not determined then its random chance
 

Kampioen

Member
Sounds like a philosophical design for a random chance dice game to me!
Maybe Flip-a-coin-ism!

Can Libertarian Freewillism explanation how one actually lands on the one particular decision finally decided upon?

Why option A instead of option B?

A better question - What within man determines the final willing option decided upon?

If you say “the will” then that just begs the question - how does “the will” come to the final option decided upon?

I only see random chance philosophy!
In my thought God is not random nor predestined. God libertarianly choose whether to create the universe or not. Neither did He make us random or unconditionally predestined, but libertarian.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
In my thought God is not random nor predestined. God libertarianly choose whether to create the universe or not. Neither did He make us random or unconditionally predestined, but libertarian.
Yes
His assumption things must either be determined or random cannot account for God's decisions without positing they were determined or just random choice

A soft Libertarian free will holds the agent is the cause of and bears the ultimate responsibility for his own choices
 

Sketo

Active member
In my thought God is not random nor predestined.
I agree with this statement!
God libertarianly choose whether to create the universe or not.
And this is where you contradict the first statement!
This statement, by definition, says that given all “influences” outside of God, and given all “influences” inside of God, it is still left to “vague-mystery” as to what caused God to land on “create the universe” instead of “not”!

If you were to explain the “vague mystery” part of the system you no longer have “libertarian-ism”! This means that in order to keep the system alive the actual cause, of the final landed upon option, must remain a “vague-mystery”!

This is why TomFL can not explain in any more detail of the “vague-mystery” he titles “agent is the cause”!

“Agent is the cause” = “vague mystery” and it does not answer how the “agent causes” the landing on of the final option avaliable!

“Agent”, apparently, has a coin-flipper in it!

Neither did He make us random or unconditionally predestined, but libertarian.
I tale this to mean “agent” flipped-a-coin and it happened to land on “create the universe”...

... unless you have a better, non-vague, explanation of what “caused” the “agent” to land on “create the universe” instead of not!

Flip-a-coin-ism still stands as an equal parallel to explain how libertarian-ism lands on the final option chosen!

Flip-a-coin = random chance!
 

Sketo

Active member
A soft Libertarian free will holds the agent is the cause of and bears the ultimate responsibility for his own choices
“agent is the cause” = “vague-mystery”

“Agent” has die where the number of sides is determined, and limited, by all mere “influences” then rolls the die in order to land on the final option chosen!
“Random chance”!

This is “libertarian-ism” in a nut-shell... unless you have a better explanation!!!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
“agent is the cause” = “vague-mystery”

“Agent” has die where the number of sides is determined, and limited, by all mere “influences” then rolls the die in order to land on the final option chosen!
“Random chance”!

This is “libertarian-ism” in a nut-shell... unless you have a better explanation!!!
Let me ask you

Is God the agent of his decisions ?

Is the ultimate responsibility for his decisions his or another source or power

Or better yet that which you refused to answer thus far

Does God have Libertarian free will ?

Are God's decisions determined ?

If not determined - random ?

So what is it

God's decisions determined or random ?

That is the question your refusal to be satisfied with the idea the agent is the cause of his decisions must answer
 

Sketo

Active member
Let me ask you
Your deflection is an acknowledgment of your inability to differentiate your system of libertarian freewill-ism from flip-a-coin-ism!

In-a-nut-shell, according to you, LFism teaches, for example

50 options available narrowed down by “limitations” to 20 options available,
then those 20 options available are further narrowed down by “mere influences” to 10, possibly even down to 2, options available
BUT THEN...
Your system breaks down at this point and is left to “vague-mystery” as to how these 2 options go in and only 1 comes out!?

This is NO DIFFERENT then narrowing down a 50 sided die down to, as little as, a 2 sided coin! Two options available (heads or tails) but no reason or explination, other than “vague-mystery”, on how it lands on the one particular side finally landed upon!

a.k.a - Random Chance dice game or flip-a-coin-ism
Is God the agent of his decisions ?
Yes but not by “random chance”! If God had LF it would leave the possibility that his decision could, by chance, land on sin!
Is the ultimate responsibility for his decisions his or another source or power
His.

Or better yet that which you refused to answer thus far

Does God have Libertarian free will ?
Absolutely Not! 100% Hard No!
This would suggest that God could somehow land on the side of sin and this is not possible!
Are God's decisions determined ?
Yes... by his nature!
If not determine
Invalid question given my previous answer!
... - random?
Not random! God does not have Libertarian Freewill!
God could NEVER “land on the side of sin”!
So what is it
Determined by his righteous nature! God can not choose against his nature! God can not sin!

God could NEVER have a two sided coin that could possibly land on sin side!
God's decisions determined or random?
Already answered!
 

Kampioen

Member
I agree with this statement!

And this is where you contradict the first statement!
This statement, by definition, says that given all “influences” outside of God, and given all “influences” inside of God, it is still left to “vague-mystery” as to what caused God to land on “create the universe” instead of “not”!

If you were to explain the “vague mystery” part of the system you no longer have “libertarian-ism”! This means that in order to keep the system alive the actual cause, of the final landed upon option, must remain a “vague-mystery”!

This is why TomFL can not explain in any more detail of the “vague-mystery” he titles “agent is the cause”!

“Agent is the cause” = “vague mystery” and it does not answer how the “agent causes” the landing on of the final option avaliable!

“Agent”, apparently, has a coin-flipper in it!


I tale this to mean “agent” flipped-a-coin and it happened to land on “create the universe”...

... unless you have a better, non-vague, explanation of what “caused” the “agent” to land on “create the universe” instead of not!

Flip-a-coin-ism still stands as an equal parallel to explain how libertarian-ism lands on the final option chosen!

Flip-a-coin = random chance!
The conclusion that reconciles Scriptures is that there is a third option ie Libertarian free will that is neither of the other two options.

Your view pigeonholes God into a one track domino effect where their exists no other choice for God but a helpless unconditionally predestined path for God, let alone us.
 
Top